RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. L. Loomba, J. In this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the peti tioner is aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge, dated 8-12-87 whereby the petitioner's application seeking opportunity to raise argument at the stage of framing of charge against them was rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that on 8-12-87 an application was moved on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, contained in Annexure-1, submit ting that no charge was made out against them and they may be heard on the question of framing of charge against them. This application was disposed of on the same day under the impugned order contained in Annexure-2, which provides that there is no need to hear the matter and with that observation the application was rejected. A supplementary-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner No. 1 affirming that after the rejection of the adjournment application the learned trial court did not hear the accused or their counsel on the question of framing of charge and proceeded to frame the charge. The submission raised is that the learned Sessions Judge has acted illegally in depriving the petitioners of an opportunity of submission as provided under Section 227 and 225 of the Cr, P. C.

(2.) SECTIONS 227 and 228 are reproduced as under : "227. Discharge.-If, upon consideration of the record of the case and documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submis sions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge and record his reasons for be doing. " "228. Framing of charge.- (i) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the judge is of opinion that there is ground for presum ing that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant case instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. " The petitioner's case, as stated above, is that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame charge without providing opportunity to the accused or their counsel of making their submissions and thereby acted in violation of the requirement of SECTIONS 227 and 228 of the Code. The learned State Government Advocate has nothing to say as regard the legal position underlying the requirement of opportunity of being heard at the stage.